On Mar 6, 2007, at 5:18 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 14:02:42 +0100, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
> wrote:
>> On Mar 06, 2007, at 02:49, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> This would require a change in XHR to adopt the Progress Events
>>> spec, but would considerably simplify Progress Events. Thoughts?
>>
>> This is a typical issue with specs that correlate. I'd say that
>> since both specs are controlled by the same WG, and since adding
>> that field to XHR in the the XHR spec doesn't make any sense
>> unless Progress Events are supported, it's fine to extend the XHR
>> interface from within the Progress Events spec. I'll admit I don't
>> have a strong opinion either way though, I just thought I'd bring
>> it up as an option.
>
> I think it would be way better to define how they interact in XHR2,
> actually.
Agreed. Ultimately, it would be good for all specifications with
elements or objects that are potential sources of progress events to
document how they apply.
Regards,
Maciej